Live data from Hacker News

A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

arxiv.org

61–70 of 180 posts

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#61
post #7

A more positive-sum view is that the US is bringing the rest of the world up in science every time it exports a PhD.

While indeed a positive outlook, I think alot of Americans are beginning to wonder what the benefit will be to them. The isolationist and xenophobic rhetoric of recent years is mostly a reaction to a growing sense that increasingly few Americans are benefiting from global goodwill and development. While I dont agree with the sentiment, its not entirely incorrect to describe such relationships are parasitic more then…

Given that most PhD students pay for their earlier education and then do underpaid grunt work as part of their program, the US should already be reaping the benefits. It's only failing to reap them in the sense that more could be gained if they stayed, and that a citizen would be more likely to stay.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#62
"Using newly-assembled data from 1980 through 2024, we show that 25% of scientifically-active, US-trained STEM PhD graduates leave the US within 15 years of graduating."

I believe there will be a significant "discontinuity" in the data beginning in 2025. Likely along the lines of (1) US-born science majors going abroad for their PhD's (and likely staying there afterwards), and (2) a major decline in foreign students coming to the US. Blocking disbursement of ongoing grants, immediate and dramatic slashing funding for the sciences, holding up universities under pain of blocking federal funding, eliminating fellowships, firing government scientists, stuffing agencies and commissions with politically appointed yes men, having oaths of fealty in all but name, deporting and blocking return of foreign students, and many more actions of similar character tend to fo that.

One of the greatest national scientific establishments was irreparably damaged in a matter of months. No discussion, no process -- just pulling the rug out. The US will coast for a few years on the technologies that just popped out of the university pipeline of development, but that pipeline is now essentially broken.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is not "exporting" anything. PhDs are people, they pay for their education and they leave. Nevertheless responding to your question: >Contrary to common perceptions, US technology benefits from these graduates' work even if they leave: though the US share of global patent citations to graduates' science drops from 70% to 50% after migrating, it remains five times larger than the destination country share

STEM PhD students do not pay for their education

STEM PhD students typically pay with labor rather than cash. Labor to teach undergrads, and to perform other university research. (though they typically pay their undergrad with large piles of cash).

That is, very much, a substantial form of payment.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#64
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if US still manages to keep the most promising?

Yes, but today less so than yesterday? We also are benefiting less from the top students with state funded undergraduate education in China and India.

On top of that, it is a significant reverse brain drain. Like 20-25 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find tenure track CS faculty at most America programs let alone a major program lime Cal or UIUC consider returning to a program like Shanghai Jiao Tong or IIT Bombay compared to today.

It has upskilled academia in those countries, but we also lost talent who could have remained here.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#66

My understanding is that scientific research has a dual problem, where the number of students needed to carry out existing professors' research is much larger than the number of junior faculty positions generally available. The result being that most trained PhDs must leave (US) academia because there are no jobs for them. In fact, I've heard scientists complain that universities owe it to students to provide more he…

If the culture normalized such that a much larger proportion of research was conducted by permanent, non-faculty, research employees, this would both reduce the need for so many students and increase the jobs available for students, and create a new employment niche with a different balance of teaching/administration/research. It would basically be turning "post doc" into an actual career rather than a stop over. Thi…

Your suggestion would have fewer fresh eyes to look at the problem. If the scientific enterprise were just about churning out widgets, then yes it’s better to have permanent staff.

But having a strong training pipeline for the globe is a huge plus for US prestige, and the top people are still offered jobs as faculty or industry within the country, so it still a net gain for USA. But it’s brutally competitive for the individual scientists

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but today less so than yesterday? We also are benefiting less from the top students with state funded undergraduate education in China and India.

On top of that, it is a significant reverse brain drain. Like 20-25 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find tenure track CS faculty at most America programs let alone a major program lime Cal or UIUC consider returning to a program like Shanghai Jiao Tong or IIT Bombay compared to today. It has upskilled academia in those countries, but we also lost talent who could have remained here.

It is it really our talent though? The US has been so addicted to China and India for STEM talent for so long that...what did they expect was going to happen? And the effect is much more prominent for China than India: China has a lot of money to dump into modernizing while India is still a relatively poor country. Imagine what will happen when India gets richer as well?

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#68
The grad-student system in science at US R1 universities is sort of like a dollar auction. You know how a dollar auction works? I have a dollar bill, and I'll give it to whoever bids the highest for it—as long as both they and the #2 bidder pay me their final bids. The #2 bidder gets nothing. Bidding can start at 5¢. Once the bid goes over a dollar, the two remaining bidders are no longer competing to win free money; they're jockeying to lose less. It typically goes up to 2 to 5 dollars before one of them decides to cut their losses.

Numerous doctoral students (and postdocs, and adjuncts) are competing for a much smaller number of tenure-track positions with their research work. If their publication record looks just a little better than the #2 candidate, they can escape from the postdoc grind and land a nice assistant professorship. Then it's only seven more years of busting their ass before they find out whether they washed out, or are set for life with a cushy associate professorship, maybe a full professorship.

People are willing to sacrifice a lot for that. But the vast majority of those who make the sacrifice don't make it, like the #2 bidder in the dollar auction. They put in years on somewhat-above-minimum-wage grad-student and postdoc stipends, doing incredibly difficult and sometimes dangerous work, often postponing childbearing, leaving behind their families each time they have to move to a new university, and either leaving behind their intimate partners or uprooting them as well. All of that redounds to the glory of the PI who runs the lab they work in—but many of those doing all that work regret the sacrifice.

Scientific progress isn't just a matter of doling out research grants and possessing fancy lab equipment. It needs talent, but that isn't nearly enough—the talented people need to work incredibly hard for many years to make real progress. For decades the US has been recruiting the top talent from the rest of the world with this dollar-auction game, paying them peanuts to sacrifice the best years of their lives.

A doctorate doesn't sound like a bad life to me, really. But you have to feel that the system, like minor-league baseball, is kind of taking advantage of doctoral students' hopes and dreams to get the rather astounding rate of scientific progress we see today (at least by some measures). It funds public goods for everyone out of those sacrifices.

The least the US could do would be to show a little more gratitude by guaranteeing them permanent US residency after they graduate, but they don't even get that—many people are kicked out of the US, where they've spent most of their adult lives, when they wash out of the academic pipeline. And the current deplorable administration has promised to worsen this already deplorable situation.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#69

My understanding is that scientific research has a dual problem, where the number of students needed to carry out existing professors' research is much larger than the number of junior faculty positions generally available. The result being that most trained PhDs must leave (US) academia because there are no jobs for them. In fact, I've heard scientists complain that universities owe it to students to provide more he…

There's that and the fact that a lot of people who attain graduate degrees are immigrants who do so for the sake of immigration.

The whole system essentially self selects for cheap labor and exploitation.

If the feds put a high salary requirement on it like the E or O series visas, perhaps the system might change.

The scientific minds of India, China, and Russia don't come to the US and slave away in the lab purely out of passion for advancing science, they do so because it's a path towards the green card. The PIs and laboratory heads all know damn well how the system works, they are no better than those bosses of H1B sweatshops, except perhaps they do their exploitation from ivy filled ivory towers rather than in Patagonia vests.

Re: A quarter of US-trained scientists eventually leave

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While indeed a positive outlook, I think alot of Americans are beginning to wonder what the benefit will be to them. The isolationist and xenophobic rhetoric of recent years is mostly a reaction to a growing sense that increasingly few Americans are benefiting from global goodwill and development. While I dont agree with the sentiment, its not entirely incorrect to describe such relationships are parasitic more then…

The US got talent for free for years; young people whose upbringing and education has been paid by/in a foreign country. The most expensive formative years had been paid for by the sponsoring country. > The isolationist and xenophobic rhetoric of recent years is mostly a reaction to a growing sense that increasingly few Americans are benefiting from global goodwill and development The rhetoric is learned from a well…

Tried to follow your link. It says: "This program is not available in your country". Wonder why...censorship?
Post reply on HN